<p>One of the reasons why UC wants to admit transfers, besides the state charter which integrates the three higher educational systems, is because of a late blooming potential.</p>
<p>You can say whatever you want about Ivies taking those of higher grades and scores, but not all children scholastically mature at the same rate and at age 15-17. </p>
<p>And a lot of this late-blooming potential is brought forth by poor educational environment. A university can indeed bring this out, as a student finds his niche. I’m sure it’s a tricky business finding whichever students have this latent potential, but one has to applaud UCLA and Cal for trying to find these types. Both could admit a higher achieving group on the lower end, but the student body would be all wealthy and much less diverse. (Not saying I agree to the extend that to which both, particularly UCLA, engage this.)</p>
<p>That’s nice and all, but professional schools…just…don’t…care. And the reason for that is that there are 3000 4 year colleges. A 3.8+ is a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>Obtaining admissions to LS is at least 50% LSAT score – higher at many law schools. Obtaining an interview for med school – and you have to interview to get accepted – is ~50% mcat score. Just because UC does not place a high weight on test scores, they are critical for professional schools. And strong standardized test takers are strong standardized test-takers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence to support your thesis? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s poppycock. A 100 IQ does not have the same potential as a 130 IQ who doesn’t have the same potential of a 150 IQ. (It is the latter group who will can score 40+ on the mcat. A 100 IQ person could spend 4 straight years studying for the mcat and never clear a 30. Raw brain processing power matters in standardized testing, as does reasoning skills – none of which are taught in college, which perhaps the exception of Organic Chem.)</p>
<p>btw: not sure of your definition of ‘smaller’, but the VR on the mcat is 33% of the total, with a floor; essentially, no score below a 9 for the unhooked.</p>
<p>RML, you’re right according to the guy from Montreal, who graduated Cal (Berkeley) twenty years ago, resides in NYC and is the founder and owner of a top, top NY lobbying firm and advised, since my son is interested in the effect a top lobbyist can have and what one can do for himself and family money wise after being top lobbyist Boys STAte and at NYLC at age 14 ,one of. The guy says to me, "best to go to a school with a big rep, such as CAL, not UCLA BTW, and scoffed at the small gen ed undergrad schools , aka Lib arts, my son’s applying preferring only Ivies, not the smaller feeder schools to their grad schools. odd. I wondered if he’s just out of it, or more knowing than I’d like to realize.</p>
<p>BTW, he also advised to either be a DC lobbyist and if state, only NY, cause NY is the dirtiet, most graft ridden state which is good for the lobbey business with CA running a close second. how about that. not to mention the money that rolls around NY and CA.</p>
<p>too many qualified kids hoping for a great college this year and every year the competition is more fierce. good luck to us all.</p>
<p>Sorry, I haven’t been frequent on these boards to defend my positions, but you had to know bluebayou, that I would eventually defend them. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your response is, somewhat if not wholly, a non-sequitur. This is why I prefer that you quote me in entirety. I have no idea of your how your response corresponds to what I stated.</p>
<p>My point was, grades in high school will correspond to how a student does in college, much more than scoring highly on the SATI. The SATI only has the purpose of manifesting those who are college ready initially, but those of higher grades will eventually pass those who “only” score well on the boards. (Remember, I’m at least partially responding to your other posts when you state that CMC is ‘harder to gain admission to than UCLA,’ by your sole criterion of quoting 25th% SAT, along with my having offered proof that UCLA understates its median scores, and undoubtedly has a higher mean gpa that CMC.) </p>
<p>The point you’re missing is that someone who scores, let’s say, an 1800 with only one take and poor prep (because of lack of funds – he/she is from a poor background) with an uwgpa of 3.8 (with whatever ascended wgpa, depending on the quality of HS) should do better in college than someone who was ‘lazy’ in his/her studies and had a 3.5/2100, and say, prepped well and retook the boards because the latter student probably won’t put forth a sustained effort in college, as at least compared to the former. This is because the 1800 student with a second take and greater prep should be in the 2000 range at least – under the theory that ascended scores are most likely mature scores – except for the Harvard/CIT types who score high naturally, and those of lower scores, especially for the UC’s, should be those of poorer background who lacked prep (along with UCLA reporting redundant scores). (Scores obviously have the highest chance of ascending from first to second take added to higher prep and a greater comfort by the student in retakes … third and fourth retakes obviously would have diminishing returns.)</p>
<p>And at college graduation, a student achieving a 3.8 is not amongst a ‘dime a dozen.’ Those who have attained these level grades at all level colleges are more likely to obtain better job offers and better grad-school options, than someone with a 3.3-3.5. You make the mistake of lumping all the 3.8 college grads together, as if all applied to med school. The average accepted student to med school doesn’t have a 3.8 average, probably more like a 3.5-3.6, because there aren’t that many 3.8’s, not in the least a dime-a-dozen. </p>
<p>Wrt to UCLA and the UC’s, that older couple I mentioned further back on this thread had offspring become doctors after dropping out of UCLA because it was too competitive. (Slightly odd situation, because they were clearly together, but stated things as ‘my daughter,’ and ‘my son’… ‘were MD’s.’) But their son and daughter left UCLA because they wouldn’t have had 3.8’s on graduation, nowhere close. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong … wrong as one can be … way, way, way too linear … way, way, way, too simplistic. Since when does test-taking follow some sort of neat order of progression? And besides, since when is the SATI a standardized test? Standardization implies that all have the same opportunity to do well (or badly) regardless of background – opportunity had in education and monetary background not having their sway. Wealth is the one of greatest factors in doing well the SATI. And youre forgetting that some find themselves in college, call them ‘late bloomers,’ and ace whatever tests await them for grad school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is stupid if you think that college doesn’t help one in grad tests. One learns more in college than in any of his/her prior 13 years of schooling, especially towards one’s grad aspirations. And I did mean learns more wrt his or her future occupation, when the prior years are more in rudimentary learning, which is absolutely important foundation. </p>
<p>Specialized learning in college (preprofessions) etc, have a way of sparking interest, helping the student find his/her calling, helping him/her maintain interest,etc. Greater interest has a way of driving the student to higher heights. </p>
<p>Your typical attorney has no idea of how to calculate a standard deviation or even how to calculate a mean/average. Your typical MD does’t have any idea of a typical malpractice litigation process. I have a friend who can tell you of the various stats related to his fantasy football league, in which he tells me of splits this and QBR rating that, to which I just roll my eyes. Boring…</p>
<p>Quote:
</p>
<p>Now you’re placing IQ into the equation. So you’re saying that SATI and MCAT are some sort of IQ test. You’re again ignoring wealth in one’s doing well on the boards for college and and equating these to grad tests. You don’t think that maturation process of college has some say in how a student does? That’s stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not 67% as in the SATI.</p>
<p>Plus you’re ignoring that someone studying in a rigorous biochem program doesn’t somehow grow is his/her ability to gain a greater reading comprehension or ability to discern things related to things verbal.</p>
<p>Hey guys - OP here. I just wanted to give an update on how things are as a pre-med a year later if anyone cares to listen. I ended up choosing UCLA and I have to say I’m glad with my decision. I realized that smallER class sizes, hand holding and all the other ■■■■ private schools offer don’t really make that much of a difference. My average science class lectures consisted of roughly 300 students and yet I was still able to interact 1 on 1 with my professors whenever I needed to. I’m doing very well so far and ultimately whether or not I get into a respectable medical school is dependent on how diligently and intelligently I work - no matter what school I’m at. </p>
Hey hefracasado,
I’m a current high school senior and I’m stuck in the same situation. I have a choice between UCLA, Berkeley and USC. Can you give me some more information about your experience at UCLA and the competitiveness of premed students there?
Having gone to a school of 50,000 with huge classes and a school of 3000 with small classes, I found it hard to be engaged in the huge classes, while I thrived in the smaller classes. But lots of people have no problems with larger classes.